ICE Agents Lose Their Job After Detaining A Black Construction Worker Without Warrant. He Wins $1.2M
.
.
At approximately 3:45 p.m. on April 14, 2025, Jamal Reed sat behind the wheel of his sedan on Tolman Street, his wife Nia in the passenger seat and their four-year-old son Theo strapped into a car seat in the back. Reed, a construction worker still wearing his high-visibility vest and dust-covered boots, had just shifted into drive when three unmarked SUVs blocked both ends of the street, pinning the family’s vehicle against the curb.
According to witness videos later presented in court, agents identifying themselves as members of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) approached the car and ordered Reed to open the door. Reed placed his hands visibly on the steering wheel and asked to see a judicial warrant, stating that his immigration attorney was on her way. His wife began recording the encounter on her phone. Neighbors also emerged from their homes and started filming.
For several minutes, a tense standoff unfolded. Reed remained inside the vehicle, repeating that he would comply once his attorney arrived. The agents did not present a warrant. Then, shortly after 4:00 p.m., one agent used a collapsible baton to shatter the rear passenger window—next to where Theo sat strapped in his car seat. Glass sprayed across the back seat as the child screamed. Reed was forcibly removed from the car, zip-tied, and placed into an SUV. He was transported to a federal holding facility, where he was detained for approximately four hours before being released without charges.
The incident, captured from multiple angles, quickly spread across social media and local news outlets. The videos showed Reed with his hands visible and no apparent physical resistance before the window was broken. Notably, body camera footage from the three agents stopped recording minutes before the window was smashed and resumed shortly after Reed was detained.
In the days that followed, Reed met with his immigration attorney, who prepared to challenge the legality of the arrest. What she did not initially know was that Reed had spent the previous four years quietly earning a Juris Doctor degree through an accredited online law program. Balancing 60-hour construction workweeks with late-night study sessions in his laundry room, he had completed coursework in constitutional law, civil procedure, criminal defense, and immigration statutes while maintaining a low profile due to his pending immigration status.
When the federal government offered an initial settlement of $150,000 in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement and suppression of all video footage, Reed declined. A second offer of $450,000 followed months later, again contingent upon confidentiality. Reed refused that as well, insisting that the case proceed publicly.
In October 2025, a federal lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint named three ICE agents and the Department of Homeland Security as defendants, alleging unlawful seizure, excessive force, destruction of property without exigent circumstances, and violations of clearly established Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
The trial began the following June in Boston. Over several days, jurors reviewed the cellphone footage, neighbor recordings, and partial body camera evidence. Testimony established that Reed had requested to see a warrant and had asked to wait for his attorney before exiting the vehicle. The defense argued that the agents acted within the scope of their authority during an immigration enforcement action. The plaintiff’s case emphasized constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Reed took the stand and described the events of April 14 in detail. Under questioning, he also disclosed his legal education, explaining that he had studied constitutional case law during late-night hours after work. He referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions concerning warrantless entry, excessive force, and the standards governing investigative stops.
After two days of deliberation, the jury returned a verdict finding the agents liable for excessive force, unlawful seizure, property destruction, and emotional distress. The panel awarded $600,000 in compensatory damages and $600,000 in punitive damages, for a total of $1.2 million.
Two weeks later, ICE issued a statement announcing the termination of the three agents for policy violations and constitutional breaches. No criminal charges were filed against them, but the civil judgment stood.
Reed used a substantial portion of the award to open a small legal clinic in New Bedford focused on providing free assistance to immigrant families navigating detention and removal proceedings. The clinic, staffed by bilingual paralegals, began accepting walk-in clients within months of the verdict. By the end of its first quarter, it had assisted dozens of families facing immigration enforcement actions.
For the Reed family, the events of April 14 left emotional scars. Theo initially struggled with loud noises and sudden stops in traffic. Nia described months of anxiety each time an unfamiliar vehicle slowed near their home. Over time, however, routines returned, and the family rebuilt a sense of stability.
The case has since been cited in legal discussions about the limits of federal enforcement authority and the role of civilian video in documenting police encounters. While the broader national debate over immigration policy continues, the verdict underscored a central principle embedded in constitutional law: government power, even when exercised in the name of enforcement, remains subject to judicial review.
In a quiet New Bedford neighborhood where shattered glass once covered a car seat, the legal aftermath transformed a moment of crisis into a precedent that will likely influence similar cases for years to come.
